The foiling of the
second attempt by Yemeni terrorists to blow their underwear and any airplane near them to
smithereens has led to praise for an
American government that motivated the plot in the first place.
Ever since the barbaric attacks of 9/11, the American public,
thirsting for revenge, has reflexively approved of any military
adventure its government has undertaken to “fight terrorists.”
That reaction was somewhat understandable in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11 but has unfortunately continued to the
present day. Very few in America have ever asked the critical
question of why al-Qaeda focuses its attacks the United States.
This lack of introspection has always been dangerous.

The Bush administration
proudly declared that the terrorists hated us for our freedoms — as
if the members of al-Qaeda were envious of American political and
economic freedoms or as if those freedoms exercised halfway around
the world somehow adversely affected them. Osama bin Laden
became so agitated with Bush’s claim that he issued a
statement denying it and reiterating, for the umpteenth time, that he
attacked the United States because it meddles in Islamic lands,
especially with its military. Bush not only
ignored bin Laden’s arguments but doubled down and invaded
another Muslim country — Iraq — thus leading to a spike in
retaliatory anti-U.S. terrorism.

The Obama administration,
instead of fighting a broad “war on terror,” has wisely
narrowed the objective to essentially a war against al-Qaeda and
related groups. The cessation of the broader American bombast,
which was widely perceived as a “war on Islam,” has combined with al-Qaeda’s
indiscriminate killing of Muslims — who make up 85% of al-Qaeda’s
victims — to take the fire out of the group as a
model for the Arab and Muslim worlds.

However, the scope of
the war needs to be reduced further. Battling any group that is
“affiliated” with al-Qaeda or has it in its name is
counterproductive. The United States should be trying to
distinguish between radical Muslim groups and combating only those
that attack the United States.

But then al-Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which operates out of Yemen and which U.S.
officials maintain is now the most threatening al-Qaeda affiliate,
would still qualify, right? The problem is that most Americans
don’t look at the origins of attacks on the United States — for
example, why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor? Most Americans
are dumbfounded if that question is asked. The same is true of
attacks by AQAP. The first bombing of a passenger airliner using
skivvies was in December 2009. But Americans don’t focus
on the fact that shortly before that attempted attack, the United
States had stepped up military strikes in Yemen on the group. The
first attempted BVD bombing was in reaction to that ratcheting-up of
violence.

Similarly, the Pakistani
Taliban wasn’t focused on attacking U.S. targets until it
attempted to bomb Times Square in New York in May 2010. Again, most
Americans didn’t realize that this attack was in retaliation
for the rather indiscriminate drone war that the United States was,
and still is, running in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Targets of the
U.S. drone strikes include not only the main trunk of al-Qaeda and
the Afghan Taliban, but the Pakistani Taliban, which is focused
mainly on overthrowing the Pakistani government. Instead of
discerning differences among Islamic militants and dividing the
enemy, the still-too-wide American war is causing such groups to
work together against a formidable enemy.

For practical reasons as
well as constitutional ones, U.S military power, if it must be used,
should be kept within the confines of the original post-9/11
congressional resolution authorizing it. The resolution only
authorized the use of force against groups and countries that were
involved in the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the administration is
stretching the limits of the resolution by attacking AQAP, the
Pakistani Taliban, and the al-Shabab militant group in Somalia — none
of which had anything to do with 9/11 or even existed
then. The legal rationale for going after these groups is vague,
but it seems to be that their leaders communicate
sometimes with al-Qaeda central. But now David Petraeus, the CIA
director, wants to widen the war in Yemen to include “suspicious
behavior” at AQAP sites. If the United States feels that there
is too much water under the bridge with AQAP, it needs to go back to
Congress and ask for approval to strike there. The administration’s
current war there is unconstitutional, illegal, and ill-advised.

At minimum, if force must
be used, it should create the lightest footprint possible and not
create more anti-U.S. terrorists than it kills, to paraphrase Donald
Rumsfeld, a former secretary of defense, who didn’t practice
what he preached. The U.S. should work on distinguishing between Islamic militant groups that actually attack
U.S. targets and those that merely affiliate with al-Qaeda but focus on local or regional concerns. After Osama bin
Laden’s death, many al-Qaeda affiliates are concentrating on
the latter. Thus, the criterion for any U.S. drone war should be
striking only those militant groups that attack the United States.
With the demise of the core of al-Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan
region, few drone attacks should be needed at all — contrary to
the widening of attacks by the drone-happy Obama administration.

As an experiment, the
United States should de-escalate the conflict in Yemen. Likely, AQAP
attempts to attack U.S. targets would diminish and eventually cease.
That is what happened to attacks by Hezbollah after the United States
withdrew from Lebanon in the 1980s. Terrorists do strike for
reasons, and instead of adopting a reflexive “us versus them”
attitude, Americans should begin to ask their government why the
U.S. is being singled out for attack. The solution might be to
remove the red flag from the bull by dramatically toning down
unnecessary and counterproductive U.S. interventions abroad.

uh … hate to post inconvenient facts, but the Obama administration has fought a war in Libya, seems to want a war in Syria, and has promised a war in Iran as soon as these elections are passed. It fought the war in Libya without any congressional action whatsoever, and has proclaimed its right to do the same in Syria and Iran. None of these wars had anything in the slightest to do with Al-Qaida …. except for maybe the rumours that we put Al-Qaida allies into power in Libya and that the Syrian rebels seem to use the same sort of tactics as Al-Qaida … and maybe those mysterious car-bombs and assassinations that keep happening in Iran that look like Al-Qaida but are of course not.

So, I'm not at all sure where this writer gets the notion that Obama has somehow scaled back Dubya's wars …. unless maybe he reads too many White House press releases and is silly enough to believe them.

the lion

If they hated us for our freedoms Bush and HIS TSA, not OBAMAS but Bush took them away from us, not only on Planes but Trains and Automobiles as well.

as for the NEW Underwear bomber, was it really an AlQaeda Plot or just the CIA saying it was an AlQaeda plot. Amazing new freedoms can be taken away with such a revelation.